Obama’s Syrian bombing resolution and America’s credibility

President Obama’s bombing allies promptly invoked "America’s credibility" and "global security" as key reasons why Congress should vote for his resolution to punish Assad.

Their script has a timeless, polished ring, and for a good reason. It was first articulated by Henry Kissinger during the bloody closing years of the Vietnam War—quibbling publicly over the war aims of the President weakens America’s great power credibility. The president of the day must be able to demonstrate his capacity to act as ruthlessly as those tyrants who don’t bother with student protests and independently elected legislative bodies.

American patriots generally don’t give a damn what others think of their intemperate political culture. On the possible use of US military force, however, theater is as important as substance. The President mustn’t lose face in the great and lesser foreign capitals that get attention in Washington.

This is a ridiculously quaint perspective.

Few outside America recognize America’s vital interest in Syria and are hardly surprised that most Americans can’t see one either.

Today, America’s credibility—its ability to intimidate adversaries and rally friends—has little to do with maintaining a rickety bipartisan assertion that the US is accountable for orderly progress in the Middle East. More to the point, the health of its reputation internationally has a lot more to do with Washington and Obama’s capacity to improve domestic affairs, significantly.

In his first term, Obama was audacious domestically. Now he’s spending his political capital on a small piece of America’s global agenda.

John McCain and fellow Republican hawks want Obama to appeal directly to Americans for support so their votes for war will be less unpopular. Obama would better serve his legacy—and America’s international reputation—if he were more ambitious and persuasive on such issues as immigration, tax, and entitlement reform.

The New York Times today includes an embarrassing story about Obama’s year-long fret over how to nominate successfully Larry Summers as the next chair of the US federal reserve.

Nowhere in the story is it mentioned that this nomination is probably more important and more concerning internationally than the President’s plans to punish Assad or elect more Democrats in next year’s Congressional elections. Yet none of Obama’s allies point out that the Senate would be doing America and the world economy serious harm if it denied the nomination of Larry Summers.

Smooth debates on Larry Summers, immigration reform, and the budget are not likely. In any event, it’s less important that Obama win every fight as it is that he play his best hand.  

“Forward”—a useless campaign slogan can be replaced

It’s silly, of course, to complain about a slogan. It’s “workmanlike” and it can’t possibly divide the country, offend swing voters, or even be disputed by the other side. Further, after his campaign spends millions repeating it in commercials, it’ll end up being as Barack Obama as his flag pin.

Banal and even silly ideas all make perfect sense at the end of winning campaigns.

Imagine what critics could have done to Obama’s introductory slogan “Change we can believe in.” It left you literally free to go back as well as forward. More dangerously, it could have been read as an insolent slur, an attack on the integrity of his opponent, war hero Senator John McCain.

Nevertheless, people are paid handsomely to design and pick campaign slogans and they ought at least to do better than chose to do no harm.

Drew Westen, the author of “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation,” said he would have chosen the slogan Obama attached to this year’s State of the Union address: “An America Built to Last.” Click on:
www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/75945_Page2.html#ixzz1uNAWxvgV

Despite being free, Obama should feel free to take his advice. After all, he had the nerve to change his mind on individual mandates and shoot Bin Laden.

Obama ought to get back to “An America Built to Last.” It’s vivid, it’s dynamic, and it can be used against Romney’s paper capitalism.

It has the virtue of emphasizing that the election is about choices, lasting structural changes verses the magic of massive tax cuts. A slogan that some people don’t like can inspire those who like it to bother to vote. A slogan as vacuous as “Forward” leaves you free to feel nothing.

Certainly, “An America Built to Last” conjures visions of manufacturing—and manufacturing isn’t everything. Nevertheless, manufacturing is again a good news story in America; its recovery is far more important to restoring hope amongst the young and the unemployed than market reports from Wall Street. (The family farm isn’t what it used to be, but it still enjoys a significant place in American politics.)

Republicans insist that America can act like Number One because of its military might. American confidence in the future will more likely be restored by reminding them that America is still the world’s most successful manufacturer.

Obama’s pre-occupation with rebuilding American manufacturing isn’t merely “rust bowl” politics; it’s exploiting, not resisting economic and technology trends. Note conservative Neil Reynolds’ column today, “Technology spurring a new manufacturing revolution.”

“Some big U.S. companies report that they will soon be “reshoring” – returning production to technologically advanced rich countries. Global consulting firm Boston Consulting Group reported recently that one-third of U.S.-based manufacturers operating in China, companies with $1-billion in annual revenue, have confirmed plans to reshore part of their Chinese production; among bigger companies, those with $10-billion in revenue, the number rises to 50 per cent. BCG said reshoring will create as many as three million jobs in the U.S. by the end of the decade, and increase the country’s annual industrial production by $100-billion.”

Click on: www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/neil-reynolds/technology-spurring-a-new-manufacturing-revolution/article2426932/

"Game Change": Sarah Palin wasn’t any scarier than the guys

Republican professionals were too chivalrous to do it alone. So, they collaborated with Hollywood to produce an HBO film about that terrible woman from Alaska who wrecked John McCain’s chances to be President of the United States.

Certainly, her briefings on foreign and monetary policy, debate preparations, and the glib vice-president vetting interviews with experts from all appropriate fields—carefully verified with on-hand witnesses—were cringing. She was play-acting from Wasilla. But, for screaming out loud, they were play-acting from Washington.

The film is burdened by a rather obvious if subtle contract between its inside McCain consultants and its producers: if the insiders help the producers portray Sarah Palin as being as truly bad as she was, they will be portrayed as intelligent professionals who, at worst, made that once-in-a-career mistake that interesting professionals are prone to make.

Consequently, the conversations with the presidential candidate are worthy of Disneyworld.  McCain’s brilliant strategist Steve Schmidt’s first words of advice are “to put country first.” McCain visibly swoons.

Schmidt has acknowledged, after the campaign, that the idea of Vice President Sarah Palin is “frightening.”

Click on: www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/12/woody-harrelson-republicans-game-change_n_1339388.html?ref=entertainment

However, on every occasion in Game Change that Sarah merely survived, he and his campaign (with the honorable exception of media advisor Nicole Wallace) were elated because, for a careless moment, he felt he was getting Palin and McCain that much closer to the White House. The only thing that truly frightened him was the possibility that that during the campaign itself the general public would be privileged to find out that Sarah Palin was an ignorant phoney surviving entirely on memorized one-liners provided by pointy-headed snobs.

 The closest the film gets to raw male hostility toward Barack Obama is the use of the word “celebrity.” The film notes their use of the snide slogan “Real America” and McCain’s constant rhetorical question: “What does Obama plan for America?” It doesn’t bother, however, to explore why and how they must wear him down in their overall campaign, not just in Palin’s pitch to the evangelical base.

That’s merely air-brushing history. But, it’s pure distortion to create the impression that Sarah Palin single-handily stirred up the “dark side of American populism.” She was the amateur in a bigger game.

In truth, the Republican Party still hasn’t come to grips with Obama or what to do in a general election with the slogan the "Real America.” This week, Pew Polling reported that a majority of Mississippi Republicans still think Barack Obama is a Muslim. Game Change may rehabilitate a few careers in Washington, but it won’t teach the Republican Party how to beat a popular Democratic president.

Libya: another uninspiring victory for no-drama Obama

Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham can’t help but enthuse about the fall of Tripoli. It’s increasingly dangerous to be an interventionist in the Republican Party. But, it’s less dangerous to be one when liberators are seen closing in on a tyrant.

They can stand with NATO and freedom fighters in Libya. But acknowledging Barack Obama’s un-dramatic staying power was too much to swallow:

“This achievement was made possible first and foremost by the struggle and sacrifice of countless Libyans, whose courage and perseverance we applaud. We also commend our British, French, and other allies, as well as our Arab partners, especially Qatar and the UAE, for their leadership in this conflict. Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Qaddafi, but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower.”

Click on: http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=ef07da62-0100-107e-d7ac-08531bd793e5

It’s that damnable balanced approach of Obama's again.

Instead of backing French and British leadership in an intervention they initiated, Obama should have invited them to stand aside after a couple of weeks and taken charge of a blatant over-reach of the mission’s UN mandate. Americans could have dropped all the bombs, taken all the risks, and been accused alone for hundreds of further civilian casualties. Instead of Kaddafi railing against “Christian” and NATO invaders he could have concentrated on “US imperialists.”

McCain and Graham should be relieved that the Libya campaign is coming to a successful conclusion. They were becoming increasingly isolated in a Party that is increasingly isolationist. (House Republicans had already voted to cut off funding and the grass roots had already started talking about impeaching Obama over abusing his executive authority.)

 An Obama failure on Libya would have been—as an Obama failure on the debt-ceiling showdown would have been—a dangerous setback for moderates in the Republican Party.

It’s mean-spirited to begrudge the President any place in the immanent success of the Libya operation—a success that will be achieved without extravagant sacrifice and with careful attention to America’s broader interests.